Enrichment of Li7 is more critical than that of Cl37 as Li6 is a neutron poison and purity of 99.995% is required, tolerance being 1 in 20'000. Cl37 could be even 99% pure. LFTR, lf built, may have to have an initial burner version and use FNaBe salt.

I searched through the Flibe Energy LFTR EPRI report for "core damage frequency" and "CDF" and found no hits.

Please excuse my statement of the obvious for the sake of contrast in a business case, but next to the Westinghouse AP1000s that are getting readied (Vogtle and VC Summer by 2019), from that link:

Large Safety Margins

The AP1000 PWR meets the U.S. NRC deterministic-safety and probabilistic-risk criteria with large margins. The safety analysis is documented in the AP1000 plant Design Control Document (DCD) and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA). Results of the PRA show a very low core damage frequency (CDF) that is 1/100 of the CDF of currently operating plants and 1/20 of the CDF deemed acceptable in the Utility Requirements Document for new, advanced reactor designs. It follows that the AP1000 plant also improves upon the probability of large release goals for advanced reactor designs in the event of a severe accident scenario to retain the molten core within the reactor vessel.

This is apples and oranges for the FE LFTR, correct? So, LFTR beat's AP1000 with a 1/0 CDF--can't divide by zero.

Wikipedia wrote:On February 16, 2010, President Obama announced $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees to construct the two AP1000 units at the Vogtle plant. The cost of building the two reactors is expected to be $14 billion.

This report is primarily about LFTR commercialisation challenges which might explain the lack of audience enthusiasm. The business side of technology doesn't seem to evoke as much interest as the technical side. That said there are some nice "sneak peeks" at the Flibe Energy technical design.

For me the report is pretty much summed up by figures 3, 4 and 5. And the message is that LFTR is achievable, modestly complex, not ready yet and that there is lots of work yet to do on the road to commercialisation. I commend those that are doing it and I hope you have good financial backing.

In my book LFTR is the holy grail of reactor designs. However I'd really like to see this sort of analysis done on a comparative basis for some of the other MSR designs so as to be able to judge who might be first to market. I think being first to market will confer substantial advantages for whoever achieves it. And I do not take for granted that it will be LFTR.